The General Religion, Mythology, and Theology Thread

Depends on the definition really. In some, Agnosticism is on a separate axis to atheism/theism and describes whether or not you think the question "does god exist" can even be answered.

So a Gnostic Theist would say "I think it can be known whether or not God exists, and I believe that they do."

An Agnostic Theist would say "I do not think it can be known whether or not God exists, but I believe that they do."

A Gnostic Atheist would say "I think it can be known whether or not God exists, and I believe that they do not."

And an Agnostic Atheist would say "I do not think it can be known whether or not God exists, but I believe that they do not."

It's quite hard to prove a negative, so there are a lot more Gnostic Theists than Gnostic Atheists. Atheism tends to be more "I have no more reason to believe that a god exists than I do, lets say, unicorns".

The problem with that schema is that there is no place for someone who just doesn't know, or doesn't have a strong opinion.

Edited by DeMarquis on Feb 2nd 2020 at 11:42:47 AM

That is just another variation of agnosticism and even them many of them just sort of fall back to their religion out of habit or other reference.

And apatheist would say "I don't care either way"

wow didn't know it was that complex. That's one of the reasons I shy from labels. But probably closest to Agnostic Theist.

Kinda tangential but a big reason still want to hold on to some faith is that I still believe in an afterlife. I know some people there is just nothing after death, we turn into nothing. Which is probably true but that's not comforting to me. Nothing is incomprehensible, it can't grasped as a concept because it's shaped like itself. Nothing is nothing.

To be honest, I rather think I will go to some form of hell or purgatory than be a "nothing". Since I believe that souls and spirits exist

Edited by MacronNotes on Feb 2nd 2020 at 2:28:52 PM

I will said there is a degree of apatheism today, a sort of "I beliv ebecause I belive and i dont care the rest", back more for cultural inercia and because at least nowdays, faith is a very personal thing

"Probably true but that's not comforting to me" is an interesting way of putting it. It sounds like you're pretty close to "I'd like to believe in an afterlife, but I don't" which is how a lot of atheists feel, I think.

One thing I try to keep in mind is that my wanting something to be true has no effect on whether or not it is. In fact, it's one of the easiest, and honestly most understandable, ways to slip into an untrue belief. Of course you have to be careful about falling the other way and treating any belief you actually want to be true with suspicion, but hey, if they're solid they'll stand up to scrutiny.

Although personally I'm not sure eternal life would be all it's cracked up to be in the long run. Sure the first million years or so would be great, but then you have to sit down and consider just how long "forever" really is and it gets a bit iffy.

Oh probably in the end that too is something i dont care too much about. I mean maybe it would be nice but I live in the now. I have only been without religion for almost for years so still figuring out things

But I kinda like the idea of reincarnation

Edited by MacronNotes on Feb 3rd 2020 at 6:25:57 AM

Reincarnation is an interesting thing. While the classical view of afterlife is difficult for me to believe in, reincarnation is something I can get behind more easily. It's both reassuring and scary in some way. For once, I'll get to know what the future brings that's definitely outside my current lifespan, but on the other hand I'll be there when the world ends. I personally have no bad feeling about turning into nothing either, and my belief is a mix between the two: you reincarnate, but that won't really be you, so the "you" that you are now won't exist any more (it's more complicated than that, but I can't describe it simply).

As for the feeling of not belonging to anywhere, well, I was raised as Christian too and I don't believe in God any more, but my cultural identity is still Christian and even if I don't believe in it, I'm still proud of the cultural heritage of Christianity. I guess you feel something similar about Islam.

By the way, would a page for Tibetan Mythology be good? Things from it like the Yeti and Shambala are mainstream and it is distinct from Chinese mythology, but 1234SynchroRainbow doesn't want a page on it as she thinks they are enough pages on mythologies of various cultures already and is really busy with other stuff.

Edited by CookingCat on Feb 20th 2020 at 1:41:45 AM

I'm not sure what the existing pages of other mythologies have to do with creating a new one to be honest. If it is distinct enough, I say let's go for it.

Yeah, I think it's common enough in popular media to justify it's own page.

I make this post to ask about a concept used in epic storytelling (which I find germane to this thread as quite a few of the original epics tend to be mythology, partially the Trojan Cycle, the Old Testament, and the Epic of Gilgamesh). The concept in question is "resonance" and I was wondering about exactly what it is and if it has any parallels to modern storytelling that isn't necessarily epic in nature.

I've never heard of it before. I think you would get better answers in "Writer's Block", this thread is pretty focused on the nature of belief itself.

As far as I can tell "resonance" just means how much the story engages with the contemporary audience.

So yeah, I guess it is pretty important for modern stories as well.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/02/oil-bible-dalton-georgia-trump-prophecy-evangelical-miracle.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

This is the story of a man in Dalton, Georgia who faked miracles with oil in order to make Donald Trump's election seem divine. Not for money, but because of sincere belief in him.

This story makes me furious in a way I can't quite put into words.

We already have to deal with mockery and people leaving the faith without these kind of loonies giving us a bad name. Seriously, that is some gold medalist mental gymnastics to try to justify faking miracles, which is a blasphemous sin in pretty much any religion, because your faith tells you to.

You guys need to start getting your miracles peer reviewed.

Weird fact: The Catholic Church actually does that. It employs a selection of atheist doctors with blind studies to prevent malfeasance. I always thought that was one of the more interesting things they did.

https://nypost.com/2015/09/06/how-the-vatican-investigates-miracles/

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 1st 2020 at 7:58:07 AM

They often have push back from local authorities though. I remember a case in India (somewhere in Goa if I remember correctly) where the local bishop interfered with their inspection and then pushed back against their findings. They got pretty angry about it this time because the "tears" turned out to be condensation from broken sewage line and the fact that people were collecting and drinking them meant not only was it not a miracle, it in fact a health hazard.

I might want to check that one because the Catholic Church has (and not recently) banned any non-healing related miracles. They're actually furious about all the tears claims because they're so easy to fake and it's been all but stated that they're considered universally fakes.

I think the only other ones allowed to count are apparitions.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 1st 2020 at 11:49:09 AM

Same with exorcisms. They still can happen but are very rare and the subject has to undergo psychiatric review first.

What about those who had experienced actual miracles and spiritual powers?

Lucky them?

What about them?